ML17228A367
| ML17228A367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17228A366 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9311180126 | |
| Download: ML17228A367 (4) | |
Text
'tl R RECO, (4
P
~4 O
Cy Cn C
O "l
O o~
t7 4~*~4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 205554001 S
F VALUAT 0 OF UC A
C OR GU OS 124 '2 0 FACIL TY OP I
G S
NO.
P ND O.
LORID 0
D IGHT COMP NY ST.
UC A
U IT OS OC OS 50-335 5 -3 1.0
~IUTRDDUDT till By letter dated Hay 20, 1993, Florida Power 5 Light Company (FPL, licensee) requested amendments to the Facility Operating Licenses DPR-67 and NPF-16 for St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively.
The proposed amendments would change the surveillance interval specified for performing an air or smoke flow test through the containment spray headers from 5 years to 10 year s.
0.0
~UTAIUA IDU Existing St. Lucie Technical Specification (TS) 4.6.2. l.d requires that the containment spray system be demonstrated operable at least once per 5 years by performing an air or smoke test through each spray header and verifying that each spray nozzle is unobstructed.
Such testing provides no quantitative data on flow rates exiting the spray nozzles and only verifies that there is flow.
NRC staff studied industry experience regarding problems revealed by means of this testing and found that the only problems in pressurized water reactor containment spray systems were those that were construction-related.
Based on this investigation and other screening criteria established for evaluating surveillance requirements, the staff recommended that this test interval be extended to once every 10 years.
This recommendation is documented in NUREG-
- 1366, "Improvements to Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements,"
December 1992.
Surveillance air flow tests were performed at St. Lucie Unit 1 in 1980,
- 1985, 1990 and 1991.
Infrared thermography was used for flow verification and all tests demonstrated that obstructions did not exist in any of the 357 nozzles involved.
A surveillance air flow test performed at St. Lucie Unit 2 in 1987 revealed an obstruction in one spray nozzle.
The cause of this obstruction was determined to be a small piece of rubber from the temporary hose used to deliver air to the spray header for this specific test, and the obstruction was, thereby, introduced into the system by the test itself.
Therefore, FPL plant-specific operational experience regarding the containment spray header 801g6 931108 PgR AOOCW PgR P
't L'
air or smoke flow tests is consistent with the findings and recommendations of NUREG-1366.
In addition, the revised Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion Engineering Plants, NUREG-1432, in the basis for the surveillance requirements (SR) for the containment spray header smoke or air flow test state in SR 3.6.6A.9:
"With the containment spray inlet valves closed and the spray header drained of any solution, low pressure air or smoke can be blown through test connections.
Performance of this SR demonstrates that each spray nozzle is unobstructed and provides assurance that spray coverage of the containment during an accident is not degraded.
Due to the passive design of the nozzle, a test at [the first refueling and at]
10 year intervals is considered adequate to detect obstruction of the spray nozzles."
3.0 IEE~NI Ai IH R Based on the above discussion, the staff finds the proposed changes of the surveillance frequency for performing an air or smoke flow test through the containment spray headers for St. Lucie Units I and 2 from 5 years to 10 years acceptable.
4.0 5IA4EO~SUITA Gl In accordance with the Commission's regulations the Florida State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State Official had no comments.
5.0 E
V RONHENTAL CONSIDERA ON These amendments change the surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released
- offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a
proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 32382).
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibilitycriteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with issuance of these amendments.
s.e
~ca CCm O
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed
- above, that:
(I) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, (2) such
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principle contributor:
J. Norris pate: November 8, 1993